PBS’s ‘Deadlock’ Frames Concern About Elections As Nutty

If the PBS television special, “Deadlock: An Election Story” really wanted to have a conversation about how politically polarized Americans can find common ground, it should have had more political diversity on its panel.

“The current climate of American discourse finds us deeply entrenched and overconfident in our own beliefs,” said moderator Aaron Tang, a left-leaning law professor at the University of California-Davis said in a statement promoting the show. “Deadlock aims to illuminate how, for many of the difficult challenges facing our nation, the honest answers are nuanced and complex. Our goal is to spark open-mindedness and help people find the middle ground instead of retreating to our usual corners.”

But the show retreated the usual corners for two reasons: the premise of the discussion had a left-leaning tone, and the discussion featured mostly Democrats or left-leaning panelists, including:

• Rachel Bitecofer, a Democratic political strategist; 
• Adrian Fontes, the Democrat Arizona secretary of state; 
• left-leaning Eddie S. Glaude, Jr., the James S. McDonnell professor of African American studies at Princeton University; 
• left-leaning Astead Herndon, a national politics reporter at The New York Times;
• Democrat Jeh C. Johnson, former secretary of Homeland Security and former general counsel to the Department of Defense; 
• Elise Jordan, of NBC/MSNBC, an anti-Trump political analyst;
• Katie Harbath, a Republican who has said she never voted for Trump and a former Facebook executive who supported the decision to ban Trump from the platform;
• Russell Moore, editor in chief of Christianity Today and well-known author of anti-Trump missives;
• Mick Mulvaney, former acting White House Chief of Staff for Trump who quit the administration; and
• Republican Kris Kobach, Kansas’ attorney general.

Tang led panelists through an imaginary presidential election day in the imaginary battleground state of Middlevania, where the polls are very close. Panelists did some role-playing and said how they would respond to certain scenarios.

The story started with two poll workers who happened to be siblings sharing a ride to the poll, when they get a call from their old Uncle Bill.  

“Now, both of you have fond memories from your childhood of Thanksgiving at Uncle Bill’s, but lately, things have changed,” Tang said. “You’ve seen your Uncle Bill’s views diverge completely from your own, especially when it comes to the legitimacy of the last election.”

There were snickers and eye rolls from the audience and panelists. The assumption is, we all know people like Uncle Bill who worry about election integrity, and we all think they are crazy. The role-playing began with the panelists.

“I’ve always known that he held certain kinds of positions, and I was okay with it, but now I think it’s a reflection of his character. Maybe Uncle Bill isn’t such a good dude anymore,” Glaude said.

They answer the phone and learn crazy Uncle Bill wants a ride to the polls, where he will work as a poll watcher. What do you do?

Someone looking for common ground might swing by Uncle Bill’s house and pick him up. After all, the point of the show was to encourage compromise among opposite views. But these pretend poll workers refused to give him a ride.

The story went on from there, with Uncle Bill, the man worried about election integrity, as the bad guy through the exercise. Then, like porn for politicos itching for civil war, the story described a group of armed citizens arriving at the polling place, forcing terrified voters to scatter out of the voting line and seek safety.  

“Deadlock” was advertised as a program that “encourages civil dialogue and critical thinking in an era dominated by polarizing debates.” But it was framed with an assumption of who is right and who is crazy, leaving little room for a variety of opinions.

It’s easy to have dialogue when most people on the panel agree. No one said, “Hey, Uncle Bill, why are you so concerned about election integrity?” If this uncle were in the room, and not labeled a crackpot from the get-go, he would have talked about non-citizens registering to vote, dirty voter rolls, constantly changing election laws, and a lack of transparency on election matters, among other issues. But there was no talk of these vital, still unsolved issues.  

“Deadlock” was a propaganda piece, designed to tell Americans that if your neighbors question the way elections are run, they are crazy like Uncle Bill. And they might be the type who would gather up guns and riot on election day. The unspoken message isstop asking questions about election results, and don’t be surprised if there is chaos on election day.

Beth Brelje is an elections correspondent for The Federalist. She is an award-winning investigative journalist with decades of media experience.